---
title: R- Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews
enableToc: false
creation date: $=dv.current().file.ctime
last modified date: $=dv.current().file.mtime
author: Padhraig S. Fleming, Jadbinder Seehra, Argy Polychronopoulou, Zbys Fedorowicz, Nikolaos Pandis
year: 2013
reference: 
tags:
- resource
status: 
alias: "@flemingCochraneNonCochraneSystematic2013"
---

-   Metadata::
    -   Title: Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?
        -   Tags:: #references#ref/Paper
    -   Authored by:: Padhraig S. Fleming , Jadbinder Seehra , Argy Polychronopoulou , Zbys Fedorowicz , Nikolaos Pandis
    -   Year: 2013
    -   Publication: European Journal of Orthodontics
    -   URL: [https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/35/2/244/490824](https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/35/2/244/490824)
    -   PDF
        -   Placeholder
-   #lit-context
    -   Focused on domain of orthondontics
    -   Finding that Quality of reviews is slightly better for more recent reviews compared to older reviews (standards of quality have risen over time) is replicated by a later study, per scite
        -   [https://scite.ai/reports/10.1093/ejo/cjs016?page=1&utm_campaign=badge_generic&utm_medium=plugin&utm_source=generic](https://scite.ai/reports/10.1093/ejo/cjs016?page=1&utm_campaign=badge_generic&utm_medium=plugin&utm_source=generic)
-   #[[📝 lit-notes]]
    -   #Claim Only about 20% of published [[systematic review]]s in orthondotics are "good" by [[AMSTAR standards of review quality]]; 20% are considered "poor"! (Table 2, p.246) #synthesis
        -   ![](https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/firescript-577a2.appspot.com/o/imgs%2Fapp%2Fmegacoglab%2Fb_73-bHxFp.png?alt=media&token=f7c204cc-c570-4561-852e-62b83f9f4f11)
    -   Quality of reviews is slightly better for more recent reviews compared to older reviews (standards of quality have risen over time)
    -   [[Cochrane systematic reviews]] were substantially better than non-Cochrane reviews